IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 16, 2012
DAVID E. EDWARDS,
CSP SOLANO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner now proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On January 25, 2012, the court ordered the parties to file a status report indicating whether this case is ready for trial, and if not, why not. The parties filed a joint status report informing the court that this matter is not ready for trial because there is still outstanding discovery to be completed, and that defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment. They did not, however, provide the court with any reason for the continued delay, why there is still outstanding discovery this far beyond the discovery deadline, or how a second motion for summary judgment would resolve the triable issues in this case.
The current scheduling order in this matter set a discovery cutoff date of August 9, 2010 (Doc. 51). This date was extended once upon request by plaintiff. The order granting plaintiff's request set a new discovery deadline of October 8, 2010 (Doc. 54). The remainder of the scheduling order was not altered, including the dispositive motion deadline. No further requests to extend the deadlines were filed, and after the deadline for filing dispositive motions had passed without either side filing a motion, the court issued an order for status reports. In their status reports, the parties indicated additional time was needed to file dispositive motions, and defendants had requested additional time to complete discovery. Defendant's belated request for additional time to complete discovery was denied, but the deadline for filing dispositive motions was granted. The parties were provided an additional 45 days to file their respective motions. Both sides then filed motions for summary judgment. On September 12, 2011, the court issued an order denying the motions for summary judgment (Doc. 69). Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied (Doc. 71).
To the extent the parties now inform the court that additional discovery remains outstanding, and that new motions for summary judgment are contemplated is not well received. The discovery deadline has not been extended, and discovery is long over. In addition, the deadline for filing dispositive motions has also passed. As stated above, both sides filed motions for summary judgment which were denied. Following the denials, the court even engaged in a settlement conference in an attempt to bring this case to resolution. The parties were unable to resolve their differences during the settlement conference, and the case did not settle. Plaintiff's supplemental request for a further settlement conference does not provide the court with any basis to find a further settlement conference would be beneficial, especially as the defendants indicate a further settlement conference would not be successful.
The undersigned finds no reason to delay bringing this case to trial. However, the parties failed to provide the court with proposed trial dates. As such, the parties will be required to provide the court with two proposed trial dates that are mutually acceptable. Failure to do so will result in the court setting a trial date without input from counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties' request for additional time to complete discovery is denied;
2. The parties' request for additional time to file further dispositive motions is denied;
3. Plaintiff's request for a further settlement conference is denied; and
4. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties shall provide the court with two alternate, mutually acceptable trial dates.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.